Dist. Ct. did not err in awarding plaintiff $435,000 in lost profits as remedy in its action alleging that defendant-City’s ordinance requiring certain licenses before plaintiff could operate strip club violated First Amendment, after Dist. Ct. found that said ordinance was unconstitutional. Ct. rejected defendant’s argument that plaintiff lacked standing under Susan B. Anthony List, 134 S.Ct. 2334, to seek compensatory damages, where plaintiff appropriately alleged that his company had intention to engage in conduct protected by First Amendment, but that such conduct was proscribed by defendant’s ordinance, that plaintiff’s company faced credible threat of prosecution, and that plaintiff would have opened adult entertainment club had defendant not had open-ended and unpredictable licensing regime. Ct. further rejected defendant’s claim that: (1) plaintiff could not seek compensatory damages because defendant never had opportunity to refrain from enforcing its ordinance; and (2) any financial harm that plaintiff experienced came from plaintiff’s decision to “self-censor,” rather than from defendant’s ordinance, where, as Ct. found, any voluntary action taken by plaintiff not to open its strip club was result of chilling effect of defendant’s ordinance.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
First Amendment